p 



^6* 












v*cr 



£°* 



TV ~' ^ *^8§^.* „^ 




v ***** <^ ^ 

k 0. 



► 'SKS-. ^ .** ♦i¥a , b >&v <£ ♦Sis- 



6° -:«s£t "•» <!> sink.- 



<f> ■ N 

§ • • » *% 










%> ' ' ' aV 



^'. ^ i^ **&%&/£* * c> 



tf* * * o 






v* 




w 



^of 










J ^H^° ^ V *^. -WWW" ^^ J ^H 



*0 



5 



, O 









/r 



LETTER 



OF 



LEONARD JARVIS 



TO 



His Constituent* 



t 

OF THE 



HANCOCK AND WASHINGTON DISTRICT, 



IN 



JHalne* > 




- 



5 



3^ 



TO MY CONSTITUENTS. 



FELLOW CITIZENS: A pamphlet has been forwarded to mc, 
from Maine, bearing the signature of Francis O. J. Smith, and ad- 
dressed to you, for the double purpose of vindicating his own con- 
duct, and doing me injury. 

That this person should abstain from the publication of his pam- 
phlet, until I was absent from home, in the discharge of my duty, as 
your representative, when he knew that the various trusts, public 
and private, which were confided to me, would necessarily pre- 
vent my giving a prompt reply, is worthy of the source from which 
the attack is made. I shall endeavor to be brief; for I have not lei- 
sure to make a long answer — indeed, from a cursory perusal ol Mr 
Smith's performance, I should deem it an insult to your discernment, 
were I to give it an extended notice. 

What is the reason which this Mr Smith gives for addressing you, 
and for making an attack upon your representative? It seems that 
an article has appeared in the <S7. Croix Courier, printed at Calais, 
in which Mr Smith is assailed for having written letters into my dis- 
trict, for the purpose of defeating my election. With his usual reck- 
lessness of assertion, he charges me with being the author, speaks 
of the printer of the St. Croix Courier, as my instrument, and makes 
this his excuse for assailing me. The pretext is without the least 
foundation. I did not write the article in question— I did not cause it 
to be written. Up to the present time 1 have not seen it; and I did 
not even know of its existence, until the fact was mentioned to me 
by one of my colleagues. As for Mr Bates, who is the printer, ard 
fcr aught I know, tho editor of the St Croix Courier, I never wr'.U- 



to him— I have never received a letter from him, and I do not recol- 
lect ever being in the same room with him, hut once, and then cer- 
tainly fur not more than ten minutes. It seems, however, that Mr 
Bates and Mr Smith have been on terms of intimacy; and, after the 
specimens of their correspondence, furnished by Mr Smith, I leave 
yo-j to decide whether he derives any honor from liis share of it. — 
My concern, however, is not with Mr Bates, but with -Mr Smith, 
and I will not permit him to escape upon a c )llateral issue. 

To the charge of having unwarrantably interfered in the election 
of your representative, by writing letters to the editor of a newspa- 
per, and others, in your district, in which unfounded charge* were 
mar.e against the regularly nominated candidate of the democratic 
party, of which Mr Smith professes to be a member , he replies 
that the letter he wrote was a private letter, and was not intended for 
publication, or to interfere in Mr Jarvis' election. I grant that the 
letter was not intended for publication, because its publication would 
have rendered it harmless. The foul calumnies it contained would 
have been refuted as soon as known, and an universal burst of indig- 
nation would have overwhelmned the calumniator. No! The poison 
was intended to work secretly — the mischief was to be done stealth- 
ily — the blow was to have been the blow of the assassin, aimed at 
the back, and struck in the dark. But the claim upon your credulity 
is too great, when Mr Smith requires you to believe that his purpose 
was not to defeat my eb-eiion, provided it could be elVected secretly. 
No one can read his letter without being satisfied that this was his 
object. It would be monstrous to believe that he could give niter- 
ance to such calumnies, without any motive. 

I have said that his assertions are calumnies, and I proceed to tin- 
proof. He asserts, that "be," (Mr Jarvis) "at Washington, was 
(he most unpopular and despised una in the ranks of the adminis- 
tration party : in fact he was too odd and offish ever to be depended 
upon in case cf real necessity." 

To meet this charge, it might be sufficient to refer to my votes, 
dun j iod that 1 have represented you in Congress, and to 

my associations in Washington. I might be content to appeal to the 
journal's of the House of Ri presentatives, and tu challenge scrutiny; 



but fur the purpose of putting an Indelible stigma upon Mr 
Smith, I will also appeal to the testimony of honorable men, whose 
characters Mr Smith may regard with envy, but to whose elevation he 
can never expect to attain. 1 appeal to Judge Wayne, to Mr Cam- 
breleng, to Mr Shepley, to Capt. Mclntire, to Col. Parks, to Mr 
Kavanagh ; and I am bold to say, that, were it necessary, I »oul4 in- 
crease the list by the testimony of all the respectable men of both 
parties : but you will doubtless consider the letters to which 1 now 
invoke your attention, as more than sufficient for the purpose for 
which they are laid before you; 



Copy of a letter from the Hon. C. C. Cambreleng, to Leonard 
Jarvis, dated Washington, 8 Dec. 1834: 

Dear Sir: 

I have understood that during your late election, a 
malevolent attack was made upon your political character, and your 
standing as a member of the house. During the term which I have had 
the pleasure to serve with you in Congress, 1 have known no mem- 
ber more attentive than yourself to the duties of a representative, 
more faithful to sound democratic principles, or more firm in encoun- 
tering the responsibilities incidental to public life. No one acquain- 
ted with your extensive information, your indefatigable industry, in 
making it useful to the house, and your manly course as a member 
of that body could doubt the respectability of your standing. 



Copy of a letter from the Hon. James M. Wayne, to Leonard Jarvis 
dated House of Representatives, Dec. 13, 1834: 

Dear Sir: 

I have received your letter, and reply to it very cheer- 
fully. The attack made upon you in a letter which you say was 
sent into your district a short time before the election, I have read 
with disgust. It is altogether wanting in decency and truth. 

Since I became acquainted with you, which was during the first 
session you served in Congress, I have been the witness of your 
course — it has been independent, decisive, free from selfishness, de- 
mocratic ; nor can I call to mind any instance, and we have had 



many tests, where our principles were to be applied in an enlight- 
ened support of the administration, in which you ever wavered or 
were absent from your post. I believe you have the respect and con- 
fidence of the party, as you certainly have mine. 



Extract of a letter from the Hon. Ether Shepley, dated, Saco, 
August 29th, 1834: 



I had a good opportunity to know your estimation and conduct as 
a member of Congress during the last session, and am gratified in 
being able to say, that it was such as to entitle you to the respect 
and confidence of your district, and to the cordial support of all your 
political friends, which I hope and trust will be cheerfully and uni- 
tedly given to you. 



Extract of a letter from the Hon.Rufus Mclntire, dated Parsonsfield. 
August 30, 1834: 



Having spent four Winters in Washington with Mr Jarvis one of 
which was in the same Mess, I think I have some opportunity of 
knowing his standing there. I never before hoard that he was despis- 
ed l>v any body. His appointment on the important standing com- 
mittees of Commerce and Foreign Affairs, as well as the several 
special committees of which he has been chairman is a better inti- 
mation of his standing in the House of Representatives and more to 
be relied on than any statement I could make. 

During all the time he has been in Congress, I have never hcasd 
him numbered among the doubtful who could not be depended on in 
any testquestion of Administration policy. The Journals will show 
his votes, and I am not aware but they will compare with those of 
other firm friends of the Administration; they will I think shew the 
injustice of any private suspicions of a want of political integrity and 
consistency if any such have been entertained* 



Extract of a letter from the Hon. Gorham Parka, dated Aognst 1834: 

Dear Sir, 

I received your note and the accompanying extract, 
yesterday evening. I haste to answer it. Your standing, last win- 
ter, at Washington, both as a man and a politician, was honorable 
to yon, and complimentary to the stat6 and district which yon repre- 
sented. Your associates and friends were the leading friends of the 
administration, in both branches of Congress ; your support of the 
administration was never questionable or doubtful. 



Xxtract of a letter from the Hon. Edw. Kavanagh, dated Daraaris- 
cotha Mills, Aug. 30th 1834: 

Your valuable services in Congress, commencing 
with the first year of President Jackson's administration, have given 
you the confidence of the functionaries of the government, and of its 
prominent friends in the national legislature, while your known 
assiduity and talent, in the discharge of all the duties to the people 
of your district need no voucher from any of your colleagues. 



Such is the opinion entertained by these gentlemen of my party re- 
lations, and of my standing in Congress. After the perusal, what 
must be your opinion, my fellow-citizens, of Mr Smith and of his 
assertions 1 

Another charge made by Mr Smith, is, that "he," (Mr Jarvis) " is 
the suppiiant tool of the Ware faction here, on all occasions, and 
there is no point of dishonorable conduct too low for him to descend 
to serve them.' 

By the " Ware faction," it is presumed, that Mr Smith proposes 
to designate those gentlemen of the democratic party in Portland, 
who had not sufficientconfidenoe in his honor and integrity as a marc, 
or in his faithfulness as a politician, to give him their suffrage. Of 
these there are several whom, I confess,that I do esteem most highly; 
and I trust that I shall always cherish the friendship of such men 
as General Chandler, Judge Preble, Judge Ware, and Mr Mitchell. 
I am glad of this public opportunity to declare myself their fritrnd. — 



8 



I have known them long and intimately, and I know them to be men 
of high character and unblemished reputation, of whom the democ- 
racy of our country may be proud. But, of their whole course, with 
regard to our state elections, I have not approved, and I have not 
been backward in making my disapprobation known to them. I 
might ask them indeed, whether, in some instances, I have not urged 
the frankness of remonstrance to excess, and I cannot doubt what 
would be their answer. Several of my colleagues, however, aze ac- 
quainted with my course and to them I appeal. 
Their testimony on this point is as follows : 



Extract of a letter from the Hon. Ether Shepley dated Saco, August 
29, L834:. 

My dear Sir: 

It is with surprise and regret that I learn by your let- 
ter of the 22d that efforts are making to disparage you and prevent 
your election, by representing you as a "despised man in the ranks 
of the administration party," and as not to be depended upon incase 
of real necessity "and as the suppliant tool of the Ware faction." 

The fact of your appointment upon the eommittee of foreign rela- 
tions, and of the other trusts reposed in you by the administration 
Party of the House, are asnfficient refutation of the first allegation- 
Your recorded votes in the House during the last agitated session 
are a full answer to the second charge. To the last it is enough for 
all who know you to say, that it is impossible that you can be the 
*nppliant tool of any man or set of men on earthy that surely Is not a 
weak point in youx character... 



Extract of a letter from the Hon. Kufus Mclntire, dated Parsonsne-ld? 
August 30, 1834: 

Instead of being the suppliant tool of Ware, &«v, I believe so- 
far as I could judge, and I had much opportunity to judge, that no 
man was or could be more .'rank than you were, last winter, in your 
correspondence with Judge Ware and his friends or could in more 
plain terms expostulate with him and them on their course. 



Extract ot'a letter from the Hon. Gorham Parks, dated August, 1834. 

I know that you opsnly, as wel as privately, disapproved of very 
much of the conduct of the 'Ware faction,' & that ina correspondence 
with the Editor of th« JefTersonian "you laboured hard and as I 
thought eloquently, and efficiently, to point out the errors of their 
course, and to persuade them to support Gen. Dunlap and the other 
candidates of the Administration; and instead of being their "sup- 
pliant tool," you with boldness and energy, denounced their conduct 
where you thought it wrong. As to your being guilty of dishonora- 
ble conduct it cannot be necessary to deny it at home: lean only say, 
it would not be credited at Washington. 



Extract of a letter from the Hon. Edward Kavanagh dated Damaris- 
cotta Mills, August[30, 1834: 

It is true I believe that for some of the deserters from the Repub- 
lican Party in Cumberland, at the last election, you had entertained 
personal friendship, but in all occasions I have heard yon reprobate 
in severe terms of condemnation their refusal to sustain the regular 
Republican nominations in that District, and you have have avowed 
your readiness in common with the great body of the Republican 
party, to mark so far as it might be in your power, your sense cf the 
impolicy and injustice of a course calculated to create and perpetu- 
ate divisions, fatal to the great cause for which we are contending. 



Fellow citizens — Can more be wanting to satisfy you of the re- 
gard in which truth and fair dealing are holden by Mr Smith! 

In order to divert your attention, from his unwarrantable interfer- 
ence, in the concerns of our district, and from the unfounded charges 
which he clandestinely urged against me, Mr Smith has deemed it 
advisable to publish a correspondence, very long on his part, and 
very brief on mine, which passed between us last winter. If he 
thinks to derive any honor from this publication, I do not feel dis- 
posed to disturb his self complacency, but I will give it a passing 
notice, in order that thjs fresh attempt of his to deceive you may be 
unmasked. To this man I owe no explanation, nor will I give hjn» 
»ny, for I hold him unworthy of notice; but I address myself to you 



10 

in order that you may be satisfied, that, in this matter, as well as in 
the interference in our local concerns. Mr Smith has placed himself 
in a very unenviable predicament. 

Mr Smith, in a very long note, which it might not be a great lack 
of courtesy to characterise as impertinent, charges me with having 
taken the "extraordinary liberty" of making known to a friend in 
Maine, that there was, on the files of the Post Office department, a 
letter from Gov. Dunlap to Smith, which was strictly confidential in 
its nature, and on this he founds a complaint that I have been guilty 
of a breach of confidence. Whether I did or did not make this 
communication is a matter of perfect indifference. I had a right 60 
to do, if I thought proper, and it is a liberty which if I had felt dis- 
posed I should certainly have taken without asking permission ot Mr 
Smith.— What are the facts! This Mr Smith, from personal enmity, 
and private interest, was determined, if possible, to procure the re- 
moval of the Post Master of Portland, and to give this lucrative of- 
fice to the printer of a newspaper of which Smith was editor, and in 
which it was understood that they were jointly concerned: to effect 
this, he resorted to expedients which were not of the most creditable 
character, and so eager was he to accomplish his purpose, that he 
communicated to the Post Office department a letter from Gov. Dun- 
lap, of the most confidential nature— a letter that was intended 
for no mortal eye, but that of Smith. This letter I myself saw upon 
the files of the Post Office department, exposed to the gaze of every 
member of Congress, who might feel any interest or curiosity in ex- 
amining the papers ; for it is customary to exhibit them to the mem- 
bers when required, and there was nothing to distinguish this case 
from any other. The papers were not only seen by me, but by others; 
and if this letter had come to the knowledge of those members of 
Congress from Maine, who were unfriendly to the administration, it 
might have been u6ed to our detriment in our annual elections. I 
observed to the assistant Post Master General, that this was a sinr 
gular letter to be madi public by Mr Smith, and I lost no time in 
communicating the fact to Mr Shepley, in order that he might use 
his influence with Smith to have the letter withdrawn. Mr Smitli 
thinks that in "the spirit ot friendship, in some of our frequent an 
dailv interviews," I ought "to have communicated with bun in re* 



11 



lation to it." I must 'protest against any such obligation. 
I was not in the habit of having frequent and daily interviews 
with Mr Smith, and there was nothing to authorise him to expect 
any particular friendship on my part. My intercourse with him was 
confined to what common courtesy required of me, towards a col- 
league ; and I never felt the slightest inclination to overstep this 
mark. I thought, however, that it was expedient to have the letter 
withdrawn, and I therefore instantly communicated the fact of this 
notorious breach of confidence, on the part of Smith, to Mr Shepley, 
in order that he might, if he thought proper, admonish Mr Smith of 
the impropriety of making public a confidential letter, and of the ne- 
cessity of withdrawing one of which the promulgation would have 
an injurious tendency on our political concerns at home. I understand 
that Mr Shepley did so, and that the letter was withdrawn. The 
incipient mischief was thus arrested, and the fact of Gov. Diinlap's 
interference in the affairs of the Portland Post Office, and of Mr 
Smiths' violation of confidence, would not have been spread abroad, 
had it not been for the strange infatuation of Mr Smith in divulging 
his own shame by his late publication. 

If in addition to the information given to Mr Shepley, I had also 
imparted the fact to a friend, in the Legislature of Maine, or had 
even warned Governor Dunlap himself of the violation, on the part, 
of his correspondent of what among men of honor has always been 
deemed most sacred, I ask you, with what propriety could Mr Smith 
charge me with having done aught that I had not the most perfect 
right to do? A letter ceases to be confidential when printed, or oth- 
erwise made public, and I certainly should have been justified in 
taking either or both of the courses to which I have alluded. 

Mr Smith says that there was a letter of Mr Mitchell on file, mar- 
ked "confidential;" and that he "kept his hands and hiseyes turned 
far from it," because he "scorned an act of meanness marked with 
dishonor!" Does Mr Smith really believe that there is any one who 
will give him credit for such exquisite delicacy? a protestation, like 
this, would lead those, who knew him not, to have doubts of him 
an.l would curl with the sneer of derision the lips of those who 
knew him best. Rut there was not a word communicated by Mr 



12 



Mitehell to the department which might not be made public, witho u f 
injury to him or to his cause. I wish I could say as much for °the 
various documents which Mr Smith has not deemed it unworthy und 
disgraceful to use in order to effect his purpose. 

Mr Smith, in the latter part of his first note to me, complains of 
my reading a letter which was given into my hands by accident, and 
which I knew was not intended for rny perusal. But of this he says 
he "should not have complained because of the indifferent character 
of the letter if had I not given a partial and improper descripti on c f 
its contents to Judge Preble, and perhaps to others." It is not true 
that I misrepresented the contents of the letter; and the other cause of 
complaint is equally unfounded. The letter in question I have rea- 
son to believe was shewn to me throuo-h mistake; but I became ac- 
quainted with its contents before I knew that it was not intended for 
my perusal. The only question that remains is, whether having 
thus without impropriety, on my part, become acquainted with the 
contents of the letter, I was bound to keep them secret] Mr Smith 
says they were "very indifferent;" I agree with him entirely, in this 
in one sense of the word indifferent but unimportant they were not. 
By this letter the intentions of Mr Smith to destroy the influence of 
men who were every way his superiors, morally, intellectually, poli- 
tically his superiors, was made manifest. I was not requested to 
keep this information secret by the person who had placed the letter 
in my hands; and I did what I shall ever deem it my duty to do: I 
put men of worth on their guard against the malignant designs of 

■ ; but I resolved when I began this letter to use no harsh 

epithet, and I will not suffer one to escape me. 

If, however, any person had reason to complain, it was the gen- 
tleman through whom the information was obtained. With him, 
however I have ever continued upon the most friendly terms. Our 
intimacy was never greater than at this moment, and I feel proud to 
avow its existence, for I esteem his character. I love the frankness, 
the cordiality, and the independence by which he is distinguished : 
I respect his freedom from intrigue, and his detestation of the low 
and vile arts, by which political fortune hunters endeavour to rise- 
When Cumberland was represented in Congress, by him, that dis- 



13 



trict mijjht well be distinguished ns " the Star in the. East.' 1 '' In 
comparison with what it then was what is it now but "a little fa-th- 
ing rush light?'* 

But Mr Smith himself did not think that he had a right to q,u<w- 
i ion my conduct. At that time I did not know the man by bight. 
and certainly there was nothing, which had come to my knowledge, 
respecting him, which excited in me any inclination to become ac- 
quainted with him. After his election to congress he was casually in- 
troduced to me and invited me to visit him. If he had thought that 
he had sufficient cause of offence, he would not have suffered hi:. 
call for explanation to slumber for three years, nor would he, at the 
expiration of that time, have rather sought than declined my acquain- 
tance. I correct myself: I mean to say, that such would not have 
been the course of any one endowed with those feelings which 
cause a man to pass through life with respect. 

I have but one more observation to make, upon Mr Smith a 

pamphlet. He closes it with a letter purporting to have been sent 

by him to me to which he has appended the following note: 

[ " The foregoing Utter was retained only a short time by Mr Jarvis, and 
then returned to me, through the P, O. which was the channel of all the 
preceding communications between us. F. U. J. S."] 

From the tenor of this note it is obvious that he intended to create, 
in your minds the impression tint the contents of this letter were 
known to me , though he has not the hardihood to assert it. Fellow 
citizens, what must be your feelings towards this man when 
I declare to you that of the contents of this letter I was utterly igno- 
rant, until I saw them in the printed pamphlet of Mr Smith? After 
I had in my last note declined all correspondence with him, except- 
ing what might pass through the intervention of mutual friends, Mt 
Smith was not ashamed to send me another letter through the Post 
Office which I did not open and which I retained no longer than 
was necessary to put it under a blank cover, and throw it again into 
the Post Office, from which I had received it. He must have known 
if this be indeed the letter which I returned to him, that he was dou- 
bly safe in writing it. He mu&t have known that I could adopt n.j 
other course than to return it unopened, after rny distinct declaration 



14 



to him, and that, if by any accident, its contents should become 
known to me, my contempt for any ono who would after my prof- 
fer havt* degraded himself by writing such a letter, would effectually 
shield him from any further notice on my part. 

Fellow Citizens : I have now said all that I think tho occasion 
calls for. I have endeavored out of respect to you — to the body of 
which Mr Smith is a member, and to the district which he repre- 
sents, to abstain from the use of harsh and injurious epithets. If, 
after a perusal of his pamphlet, and of my reply, you think he has 
entitled himself to the degrading and withering epithets by which 
we mark our contempt of what is abject, and our detestation of what 
is vile, I leave it to you to apply them. 



LEONARD JARVIS. 



Washington, Dec. 1834. 



CORRESPONDENCE. 



Mr Francis O. J. Smith having caused to be pla- 
ced upon the tables of the members of the House, 
a gross and infamous attack upofi the character of 
one of his colleagues, it becomes necessary that the 
subsequent proceedings resulting from this act, 
should also be known. 

Mr Jams therefore submits the correspondence 
which has taken place, and pronounces Francis O. 
J. Smith to be, most emphatically, a LIAR, a 
SCOUNDREL, and a COWARD. 

[Mr Lytic to Mr Ja.rvis.~\ 

Washington, January 10th, 1835. 

Dear Sir — I herewith return you a copy of the correspondence 
between yourself, myself, and Francis O. J. Smith, Esq., together 
with a letter from my friend, the Hon. James Love, of Kentucky. — 
I consider that the course of Mr Smith is such as to entitle him to 
no further notice on your part, unless, it might be to spread this 
correspondence before the public : and thereby, place him in the 
attitude which that publication must entitle him to, in the estima- 
tion of every just and honorable mind. 

It is not forme to force or invite unnecessarily a contest with Mr 
Smith. He has chosen to place himself out of my reach as your 
friend — and in no other way have I any claim for satisfaction on 
him. I leave him, therefore, and his communications, with you to 

dispose of, as may seem best in your own judgment. 

I am, most respectfully, your obedient servant, 

Hen. Leoxard Jarvis. R. T. LYTLE. 

[Letter from Mr Jarvis to Mr Smith.] 

Washington, Friday, February Gth, 1835. 
Sir — A printed document to which your name is affixed, has this 

morning been laid upon my table, in the House of Representatives, 
as well as upon that of other members, reflecting upon my charac- 
ter, in terms too gross for me to repeat. No man has a right to use 
the language that you have permitted yourself to use — unless, he is 
willing to hold himself personally responsible. I am, therefore wil- 
ling to assume, that you are ready to give me the satisfaction which, 
in such cases, the injured party has a right to demand; and which, the 
person who gives the provocation, cannot refuse, unless he is wil- 
ling to submit to the scorn of every man endowed with honorable 
feelings. My regard for the character of the State, of which wo 
both are citizens, and which, we in part, represent — induces me to 
afford you an opportunity of showing, that in your attack upon me, 
there is something more than mere bravado. My friend, Mr Lytic, 
who does me the honor to be the bearer of this message, will ar- 
range with any friend of yours, whom you may indicate, the time, 
the place, and other preliminaries of our meeting. 

Mr Francis O. J. Smith. LEONARD JARVIS 



2 

[Mr Smith to Mr Ltjtie.] 
Hon. R. T. Lytic, Washington, February 7tb, 1835. 

Siu: — Only out of respect for yourself, I consented this morning 
to receive from you, a communication addressed to me, signed Leo- 
nard Jarvis, and dated yesterday, in which he affects to regard my- 
self, as having commenced an "attack"' upon his character, and to 
require of me "the satisfaction that in such cases the injured party- 
has a right to demand." 

Apart irom the misrepresentation in his letter, that I had stood in 
relation to him, otherwise than upon the defensive, against his own 
base intrigues to injure myself, I should be paying to my own self- 
respect, but a poor compliment, were I to permit myself to answer such 
a call from a man, who, before having recourse to his present expe- 
dient for satisfaction, not only suffered himself to be Suspected, but 
to be convicted, in addition thereto, in two instances at least, cf acts 
of piracy upon my confidential correspondence, such as no one, en. 
titled to the distinction of an honorable man, would, or could commit. 

In addition to this, you should understand that, before he made 
his appeal to the public press, to sustain his own character, and to 
detract from mine, he knew, (from my letter to him of the 17th of 
March last,) that I held myself responsible to him, personally, in 
any ordeal he might select, for either the further prosecution, or im- 
mediate termination of his controveisy with me. Thai, he stocd 
only in the position cf one suspected of dishonorable conduct, and 
had the claims of one thus situated. But, not being disposed to 
improve the ordeal that he now tenders, he elected an appeal to the 
judgments of his and my fellow citizens, through the public press, 
and this after my letter of the 17th of March had been made public, 
Bo that he could not be ignorant of its contents. At that tribunal of 
his choice, I have met him: And if he has failed of obtaining satisfac- 
tion fAere, it is because his position has been changed from that of a 
man only suspected, to that of one positively convicted, of acts which 
degrade him below my respect, and convert him into game, not 
worth my pursuit, even for purposes of retaliation. He well under- 
stood this, oi he would probably have again relieved his valor, by an 
appeal to the public, as he did in the former instance, instead of 
troubling you, to be the bearer of any communication to me. 

Permit me to add, as my own notions of what is just, that the man, 
whose inward ser.se of honor and shame, cannot be disturbed by 
implications of the character complained of by Mr .larvis, until the 
pain of blows, inflicted publicly, in the shape of proofs of the justness 
of those implications, lias made him desperate, ceases to have a 
claim to the protection oi any code of honor, and much less of such a 
code as, in its nature, secures the man who can pocket what he con- 
ceives to be an insult, if it be given in private, and who recoils only 
when the public are put in the way, upon his own appeal, of pro- 
nouncing it merited. 



3 

Very nearly, in the language of another, fully indicative of tho 
feelings I now entertain towards him, and of the feelings that, in 
view of the course he has pursued, will more redound to "the cha« 
racter of the State," which he affects to have at heart, I will conclude- 
I know not what sense of punishment may reach the 60ul of ribalds, 
such as Jarvis — but if his insults sink no deeper in theminds of the 
inquisitors, than they can now in mine, he will, for all acquittance, 
be left to his own shamelessness and shame. 

Disclaiming all intentional disrespect towards yourself, allow me 
to add assurances of the sentiments of esteem, with which 
I have the honor to be, your obedient servant, 

FRANCIS O. J. SMITH. 



[Mr Lytle to Mr Smith.'] 
Hon. F. O. J. Smith, Washington, Feb. 7th 1835. 

Sir: — I have read the letter you just now left with me of this 
date; but which I was not permitted to do, before you departed. 

Allow me to say, that I did not expect a revised history of your 
controversy or correspondence with Mr. Jarvis, when I became the 
bearer of his letter to you, of this morning, but a direct, unequivo- 
cal, and brief reply to the demand of my friend, for reparation to his 
injured character, and wounded honor. 

I shall not receive your communication of to-night, as an answer 
suitable to be borne by me, to my friend, but shall expect one of 
that character, as promptly as it may conveniently be given. 

Respectfully, sir, your obedient servant, R. T. LYTLE. 

P. S. I herewith return your communication. 

[Mr. Smith to Mr Lytic] 
Hon. R. T. Lytle, Washington, Feb. 9th 1835. 

Sir: — I have read the note from yourself, which you handed me 
late on Saturday night last; but which I was not permitted to do 
before you departed. 

I have made you acquainted with the relationship in which I 
stand to Mr Jaivis, and shall take no further notice of his note to 
me, in way of reply. 

Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

FRANCIS O. J. SMITH. 

[Mr Lytle to Mr Smith.] 

Washington, February 9th, 1835. 

Sir: — In your communication of this morning, handed me by 
Major Hall, I find the following remark, viz: — "I have made you ac- 
quainted with the relationship in which I stand to Mr Jarvis, and 
shall take no further notice of his note to me in way of reply." 

li this ri mark, taken in connection with the abusive epithets you 
thought proper to apply to Mr Jarvis, in your letter to me of the 7th 
mst. you mean to intimate that I am to be regarded as the organ of 
a demand for satisfaction, from one who is not to be considered as a 
gentleman, and that you would prefer, in the adjustment of this diffi- 



4 

culty, the bearer of his communication, I am happy to inform you, 
that from my knowledge of Mr Jarvis as a man of honor and intec*- 
rity, I am prepared to sustain him throughout, and you may consider 
me a3 his endorser, and if you prefer a settlement of this controversy 
through me, my friend who bears this, is authorised to adjust with 
you, or any friend of yours, the terms usual on such occasions. 

Your obedient servant, . R. T. LYTLE. 

[Mr Love to Mr Lytic] 

Washington, Feb. 9, 1835. 

Dear Sir — I handed yoar note to Mr Smith this morning: he dis- 
claimed, in express terms, any intentions of disrespect to you in his 
notes to Mr Jarvis, that he had no cause of quarrel with you, and 
would have none in relation to this business. 

I asked him, if he had any objections to commit to writing, this 
disclaimer. He answered that he had no wish to enter into a correspon- 
dence on this subject, that if his note should be considered as disres- 
pectful, he would at any time make the disclaimer. I consider the 
answer of Mr Smith as satisfactory. 

Hon. R. T. Lytxe. Your friend, JAMES LOVE. 



\Mr Jarvis to Mr Lytle.'\ 

Washington, Feb. 10th, 1835. 
Dear Sir — I find ,by the copy of the very scurrilous, contemptible 
and cowardly note of F. O. J. Smith, which is among the papers 
you have handed me to-day, that he shrinks from a personal interview 
with me, under the pretence that I was bound to notice a former abus- 
ive note from him, which he sent to me, after I had offered him per- 
sonal satisfaction, and which I returned to him unopened. 

As I had the advantage of your counsel, will you do me the favor 
to state, whether the course adopted by me, did, or did not, comport 
with your views of what was due to myself, upon that occasion. 

Very faithfully, your obedient servant, 

LEONARD JARVIS. 
Hon. R. T. Lytxe. 

[3/r Lytk to Mr Jarvis.] 
Dear Sir — I have received your note of the 10th, enquiring from 
me, whether the course adopted by you " did or did not compor 
with your (my) views of what was due to yourself?" upon the occa- 
sion of your controversy with Mr Smith: 

I have no hesitation in saying, that from the period of your appli- 
cation to me, in relation to this affair, the course you adopted did com- 
port with my views of propriety, in all respects. My own note to 
Mr Smith is the best proof I can offer you, as to the estimation in 
which I hold your course and character. 

With great respect, your friend, and obdient servant, 
Hon. Leonard Jarvis. ROBERT T. LYTLE. 

Washington, Feb. 11, 1835. 



■? 89 






* +* « .V s 

• 1 ^ * 



e 






V 



' i- 0-7 * '•wis'''' <s-* , °* 

-. V^/^fc... *. ... ... 



4 o 



J 



■?- v » T * °* 



^ J 









<$** 



